Jodi Arias Legal Question and Answer Thread *no discussion* #2

[MeeBee]

Hey AZL

So since it has been shown that Juan prosecuted #17's ex-husband in the early 2000's for first degree murder (later pleaded down to assault) and appears to have failed to mention that she knew Juan and the early 2000 (she only mentioned a non violent charge that he was charged with after they separated) charge I have a couple of questions.

1. Is the question of whether or not the potential jurors know any of the players in the trial asked in such a way that it leaves a loophole. For instance, could the juror say she didn't know him personally or interact with him so she didn't really know him?

2. Is the question asked both in open court or on the questionnaire or just in open court?

3. How much digging do prosecutors typically do when information of that nature is revealed at the stage of jury selection? If the juror revealed that her ex husband was a felon and she says only after they separated would it have been logical for Juan to look him up himself and find the non disclosed charge? Or could the juror's willingness to talk about the other charges have made it seem to him that she was being honest and never occurred to him that he needed to dig deeper?

4. Is it possible that the question on the questionnaire also left a loophole, for instance, do you know anyone who has been charged for a crime in the last 10 years? Just curious how it's phrased in Arizona.

These are just things I'm wondering. Thank you AZL.

 

[AZlawyer]

Let me say that I'm with you; I don't think there was tampering, but I believe the scenario some are wondering about is how a person (e.g., a mitigation specialist) could send a tweet that seemed to foreshadow the actual verdict. Your basic bootstrap agrument. Then throw in that the juror in question is reported to be of hispanic descent, like said MS, and you've got your gunman on the grassy knoll.

I do agree that it seems there should be a process if it could be shown that a particular juror demonstrated behavior against due deliberation process and thus altered a potential verdict. But I don't know if the groundwork yet exists for ruling in such a manner in AZ law.

There is no provision for disregarding a jury verdict due to failure to properly deliberate.

Is it just a formality or some kind of motions that have been filed, and were they filed by the Prosecution or the defense?
If you get time, could you explain what this is about, please?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=902180189812838&set=o.135700933290158&type=1&theater

The mandate filings? Those just signal the "official" end of the media's appeal of the secret testimony.

About the Alexanders' (anticipated) civil suit against JA.

1. Does she have the right to appear in person during those proceedings?

2. How much latitude does she have (if any) to slime Travis again?

3. Would she be allowed to claim self defense again despite her conviction of premeditated murder?

4. It seems that JA or her family set up a trust to prevent the Alexanders from claiming damages. If it can be proven that the trust was set up specifically for that reason, are the funds in the trust protected after JA loses the civil suit and is ordered to pay restitution?

TIA

1. She will be allowed to appear by telephone from prison.

2. None that I can think of.

3. No, she can't argue anything that would be inconsistent with her conviction.

4. It really depends on the terms of the trust, where the $ came from, etc. if the $ is "really hers," ultimately the Alexanders will be able to get it.

Hey AZL

So since it has been shown that Juan prosecuted #17's ex-husband in the early 2000's for first degree murder (later pleaded down to assault) and appears to have failed to mention that she knew Juan and the early 2000 (she only mentioned a non violent charge that he was charged with after they separated) charge I have a couple of questions.

1. Is the question of whether or not the potential jurors know any of the players in the trial asked in such a way that it leaves a loophole. For instance, could the juror say she didn't know him personally or interact with him so she didn't really know him?

2. Is the question asked both in open court or on the questionnaire or just in open court?

3. How much digging do prosecutors typically do when information of that nature is revealed at the stage of jury selection? If the juror revealed that her ex husband was a felon and she says only after they separated would it have been logical for Juan to look him up himself and find the non disclosed charge? Or could the juror's willingness to talk about the other charges have made it seem to him that she was being honest and never occurred to him that he needed to dig deeper?

4. Is it possible that the question on the questionnaire also left a loophole, for instance, do you know anyone who has been charged for a crime in the last 10 years? Just curious how it's phrased in Arizona.

These are just things I'm wondering. Thank you AZL.

1. Yes, often it is just asked "Does anyone know any of the lawyers?"

2. Usually in open court.

3. Typically there is no investigation whatsoever of jurors by either side. Unless there is a big "red flag," IMO it would not even have crossed JM's mind to check on something a juror said.

4. There is no standard question on this subject, so we'd have to see the video of jury selection and/or the written questionnaire.

 

[RickshawFan]

If JSS had to "school" Willmott on aspects of the law and/or legal protocol does that set up appeal on the grounds of incompetent counsel?

 

[AZlawyer]

If JSS had to "school" Willmott on aspects of the law and/or legal protocol does that set up appeal on the grounds of incompetent counsel?

No. For an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel to succeed, the defendant would have to show some concrete mistake that was made by counsel (action or inaction) that likely affected the result of the trial.

 

[tlckgram]

Hello AZL, needing to pick your legal mind once again.

The killer and her team seemed to have focused so much effort during the retrial penalty phase trying to prove that there had been *advertiser censored* (no matter how negligible) on Travis's computer and speculation was that effort was mainly for purposes of an appeal.

Considering that this jury declared that the *advertiser censored* issue was actually NO ISSUE at all as far as they were concerned, would this diminish any argument the defense team may have as far as an appeal goes?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hello AZL, needing to pick your legal mind once again.

The killer and her team seemed to have focused so much effort during the retrial penalty phase trying to prove that there had been *advertiser censored* (no matter how negligible) on Travis's computer and speculation was that effort was mainly for purposes of an appeal.

Considering that this jury declared that the *advertiser censored* issue was actually NO ISSUE at all as far as they were concerned, would this diminish any argument the defense team may have as far as an appeal goes?

No. The jurors' words would not be admissible for purposes of an appeal.

 

[Colie]

When ‬ Jodi waived her presentence interview? Does that mean her finances are not going to be disclosed.
And if the Alexanders want some kind of restitution would they still be able to have Jodi's finances disclosed?

 

[geevee]

AZL - I hope you won't mind my asking a question about another case, no one posts on her (Debra Milke) thread and I'm very curious about something; in the 9th Circuit decision this was stated:

(Page 20 of document):

"In reviewing the exhibits attached to Milke's post conviction petition, Judge Cheryl K. Hendrix, who was also the trial judge, "was unable to find a reference to the type of evidence that is allowed under Rule 608 to impeach the credibility of a witness."

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...0corrected.pdf
--

Am I reading it correctly that the post conviction appeal was heard by the original trial judge (Judge Hendrix)? It just seems to me that a judge would have to recuse themselves if they now sit on the appeals court and had tried a case that later comes up for appeal, maybe I'm just misunderstanding what was said in the decision and since the case may at long last come to a conclusion this morning, I really would like to understand this. Thanks so much.

 

[AZlawyer]

When ‬ Jodi waived her presentence interview? Does that mean her finances are not going to be disclosed.
And if the Alexanders want some kind of restitution would they still be able to have Jodi's finances disclosed?

Her finances will be disclosed to the Alexanders in the civil suit they will no doubt be filing. I don't think they will be disclosed in the criminal sentencing process. I don't even think that's normally part of the presentence report, but I could be wrong.

AZL - I hope you won't mind my asking a question about another case, no one posts on her (Debra Milke) thread and I'm very curious about something; in the 9th Circuit decision this was stated:

(Page 20 of document):

"In reviewing the exhibits attached to Milke's post conviction petition, Judge Cheryl K. Hendrix, who was also the trial judge, "was unable to find a reference to the type of evidence that is allowed under Rule 608 to impeach the credibility of a witness."

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...0corrected.pdf
--

Am I reading it correctly that the post conviction appeal was heard by the original trial judge (Judge Hendrix)? It just seems to me that a judge would have to recuse themselves if they now sit on the appeals court and had tried a case that later comes up for appeal, maybe I'm just misunderstanding what was said in the decision and since the case may at long last come to a conclusion this morning, I really would like to understand this. Thanks so much.

Post-conviction relief proceedings are heard initially by the trial judge. This is because information that doesn't appear in the trial court record may be raised in those proceedings, and appeal courts don't consider any information not in the record. So a record has to be made in the trial court first.

 

[geevee]

Her finances will be disclosed to the Alexanders in the civil suit they will no doubt be filing. I don't think they will be disclosed in the criminal sentencing process. I don't even think that's normally part of the presentence report, but I could be wrong.



Post-conviction relief proceedings are heard initially by the trial judge. This is because information that doesn't appear in the trial court record may be raised in those proceedings, and appeal courts don't consider any information not in the record. So a record has to be made in the trial court first.

Thanks so much, AZL.

 

[CarolinaWoman]

AZL, why would these documents dated 3/23&24/2015 be sealed? There is no jury to prejudice. Is Arias trying to change counsel prior to the April 13 sentencing? After the sentencing Nurmi and Willmott will be gone anyway.

Thank you!


Case Documents
Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
3/24/2015 SDD - Notice: Sealed Document - Party (001) 3/26/2015
NOTE: MINUTE ENTRY DATED 3/24/15
3/23/2015 SDD - Notice: Sealed Document - Party (001) 3/26/2015
NOTE: EX PARTE SUPPLEMENTAL TO MOTION TO CHANGE COUNSEL
3/11/2015 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 3/11/2015

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa....archResults.asp?lastName=Arias&FirstName=Jodi

 

[AZlawyer]

AZL, why would these documents dated 3/23&24/2015 be sealed? There is no jury to prejudice. Is Arias trying to change counsel prior to the April 13 sentencing? After the sentencing Nurmi and Willmott will be gone anyway.

Thank you!


Case Documents
Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
3/24/2015 SDD - Notice: Sealed Document - Party (001) 3/26/2015
NOTE: MINUTE ENTRY DATED 3/24/15
3/23/2015 SDD - Notice: Sealed Document - Party (001) 3/26/2015
NOTE: EX PARTE SUPPLEMENTAL TO MOTION TO CHANGE COUNSEL
3/11/2015 012 - ME: Trial - Party (001) 3/11/2015

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa....archResults.asp?lastName=Arias&FirstName=Jodi

Documents that are sealed in the court file are not being hidden from the jury; they are being hidden from the public. Or in this case, where the document is labeled "ex parte," it is being hidden from the other side. Back when Jodi filed her last motion to change counsel, remember how she wanted to make an ex parte record in chambers about her reasons and the judge said no? I bet this is a document describing whatever it was she wanted to say, just to make the record complete for the appellate court.

 

[AZlawyer]

You know how WSers like to pick apart Jodi's statements to find the lies? Maybe you can use your expertise to help me out with a case. Tell me, do you think this guy was lying to me?

Me: [Asks Mr. X if he was the author of a certain inflammatory internet comment.]
Mr. X: No. Well, it was just pretty random but... [sentence left hanging in air]
Me: [repeats question]
Mr. X: No, I'm too busy to do that. I'm pretty positive I wouldn't do such a thing.
Me: You're pretty positive or do you know?
Mr. X: I mention to you, I'm pretty busy, I barely have time to do anything.
Me: I know, but if somebody asks me, you know, did you stab this kitten, I would say no. I'm pretty busy, but I know I would remember if I stabbed a kitten. [Asks again if he wrote the comment.]
Mr. X: Not that I know of?
Me: Wouldn't you be the one who would know?
Mr. X: Why would I know?
Me: Because it's you doing it.
Mr. X: I sit on a computer 24 hours a day doing a billion of things.
Me: So are you sure you did not leave that comment?
Mr. X: I'm pretty positive that I would never do such a thing.
[Mr. X's counsel bangs head on conference room table.]

:floorlaugh:

 

[mugwump*]

Mr. X: No. Well, it was just pretty random but... [sentence left hanging in air]

That sentence speaks volumes, and as it was the first response...

 

[CarolinaWoman]

I know what happened, he was in a fog. We have heard that defense before.

Was this a politician you were questioning? I think he he lying to you because he never came right out and said "NO, I did not type that inflammatory internet comment." He more or less did a shuck and jive number with his replies to your questions.

 

[PiaPill]

Couldn't you verify the "electronic footprint" (... the I.P. address and track back to an individual that way)? Based on info provided, pretty sure individual was less than truthful.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Round and round the mulberry bush ... you were deposing a liar, and you knew it all along!

 

[ZoeyW]

You know how WSers like to pick apart Jodi's statements to find the lies? Maybe you can use your expertise to help me out with a case. Tell me, do you think this guy was lying to me?

Me: [Asks Mr. X if he was the author of a certain inflammatory internet comment.]
Mr. X: No. Well, it was just pretty random but... [sentence left hanging in air]
Me: [repeats question]
Mr. X: No, I'm too busy to do that. I'm pretty positive I wouldn't do such a thing.
Me: You're pretty positive or do you know?
Mr. X: I mention to you, I'm pretty busy, I barely have time to do anything.
Me: I know, but if somebody asks me, you know, did you stab this kitten, I would say no. I'm pretty busy, but I know I would remember if I stabbed a kitten. [Asks again if he wrote the comment.]
Mr. X: Not that I know of?
Me: Wouldn't you be the one who would know?
Mr. X: Why would I know?
Me: Because it's you doing it.
Mr. X: I sit on a computer 24 hours a day doing a billion of things.
Me: So are you sure you did not leave that comment?
Mr. X: I'm pretty positive that I would never do such a thing.
[Mr. X's counsel bangs head on conference room table.]

:floorlaugh:

This reminds me of http://time.com/3378763/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-lawsuit-pharrell-drugs/

As for why, exactly, he lied, Thicke says that he “had a drug and alcohol problem for the year” and “didn’t do a sober interview.”

It sounds like you needed to channel our dear Juan Martinez and cross your arms and demand "Y E S or N O!!!"

By the way, thank you for all you do here. I recall when Richard Hornsby used to answer ? here and I asked the mods please open it up to our other attorneys too, who are just as wonderful. You are very kind to spend time answering questions here with such patience and grace.

"It depends on what the meaning of is is" then President of the United States, Bill Clinton https://youtu.be/j4XT-l-_3y0

 

[nwmouse]

AZL, according to an article from about 18 hours ago about Perryville, CMJA will be in Max Sec for at least 2 years, before being considered for Gen Pop. Single cell, 23 hours a day, one 15 min phone call per week.

All inmates into a state pen also go thru an intake process of a few days to a few week. During that time, they administer some psych testing, medical testing, assess medical needs, etc. The inmate is given "orientation" to the rules, etc. As she is slated for max security, she won't be eligible for work programs or things like educational classes for a long while.

However, will the 2,400+ days CMJA has already served count towards the 2 years in max security??

 

[Tiger09]

Just for clarification purposes. ...

Since Jodi's "fog" has been lifted, there's no way she can use this to her advantage via appeal nor financial gain, is there? Meaning, can she say Nurmi insisted she use The Fog story? Or can she say I'll give full details for x or y? Like selling her story or plea deal?